Chapter 45

The Lost Urban Sociology of

Pierre Bourdieu
Mike Savage

Urban studies currently face a dilemma. There is a striking lack of dialogue between
popular theoretical frameworks on the one hand, and empirical urban studies on
the other. Urban theory is increasingly concerned with mobility, networks, liquidity,
and fluidity, and has sought to reorient urban analysis away from a tired urban
sociology which delineates the city in terms of its fixed territorial properties (for
examples, Amin and Thrift 2002; Graham and Marvin 2001; Urry 2007; Sheller
and Urry 2006; Gandy 2005). These new interests admirably explore the technological dimensions of distributed or networked urbanism, instantiated in devices such
as transport and communication, and in flows such as those of money, sensory
perceptions, objects, and people. On the other hand, numerous empirical urban
studies emphasize inequalities and stratification. Some writers identify that the
spatialization of class appears as endemic within the current urban fabric (Parker
et al. 2007). Whether marked in the exclusionary practices of the middle class in
suburban locations (notably in gated communities), or in the revanchist politics of
gentrification, or in wide-ranging processes of gheottoization and residualization,
the socio-spatial sedimentation of social inequalities seems intrinsic to urban process
(see, for example, Butler and Watt 2007; Blokland and Savage 2008; Ellison and
Burrows 2006; Atkinson 2006; Atkinson and Blandy 2007; Parker 2003).
Urban studies needs to find a way of staging a more effective dialogue between
these two currents. This is, however, singularly difficult. The sociology of stratification continues to be focused on an employment aggregate approach which concentrates on occupational classes (see the discussion in Crompton 2008) and has little
ready means of dealing with the spatiality of social inequality. Marxist-inspired
urban analyses, for instance that associated with the regulation school, have developed powerful analyses of neo-liberal restructuring and urban governance but have

The New Blackwell Companion to the City Edited by Gary Bridge and Sophie Watson
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

BridgeThe New Blackwell Compaion to the City

c45.indd 511

11/5/2010 8:47:39 PM

512

MIKE SAVAGE

largely stayed clear of sociological debates about how inequality can best be conceptualized.1 By contrast, post-human urban theorists find it difficult to bring a
focus on human inequalities within their purview in a developed or elaborated way.
On occasion, their concerns are seen to displace conventional sociological categories
such as that of social class (see notably Latour 2005, who calls for an associational
sociology).
In the face of this stand-off, I will suggest here that Pierre Bourdieus social theory
retains the potential for effectively recharging urban studies, so long as this is interpreted within the frame of field analysis. A few writers such as Loic Wacquant
(2007; 2008), Chris Allen (2008a; 2008b), Tim Butler (Butler and Robson 2003),
Paul Watt (e.g. 2008), as well as myself (e.g. Savage et al. 2005a, Savage 2009) have
argued that Bourdieus conception of field, habitus, and capitals is a theoretically
powerful way of reorienting urban theory in ways which take account of the significance of flows and mobility, yet which embeds these in processes of social stratification. Currently, however, this work remains marginal within urban studies. In
part this is due to the perception of Bourdieu as a reductive sociologist with limited
geographical concerns. This reputation is partly deserved due to the way that
Bourdieu especially in his later political writings pitched against neo-liberalism
seems to defend conventional national models (see, notably, Bourdieu and Wacquant 1999). In this chapter I therefore seek to recover Bourdieus lost urban
sociology, the elements of his thinking which allow a more effective and productive
engagement with current spatial theory.
A central argument here is that rather than focusing on the concept of habitus
(as in the attempt to consider Bourdieus legacy for urban studies by Hillier and
Rooksby 2002 and Painter 2000), we need to turn to his field analysis, as a form
of inquiry which offers a ways of operationalizing the kind of relational strategies
which Doreen Massey (2005) rightly sees as essential to an adequate theory of
spatiality. In the first section I therefore situate Bourdieus thinking in the longerterm problems that field analysis has encountered in recent years. In the second
section I recover Bourdieus lost urban sociology through a detailed account of
how he saw the relationship between field analysis and urban studies at different
moments in his career. I concentrate especially on his shift from a more structural
to a more spatialized mode of analysis in his later work, and reflect on his interests
in a distinctive urban sociology.

Pierre Bourdieus Field Analysis

Bourdieus intellectual project can be seen as involving a battle on two fronts, against
positivist sociology on the one hand, and what he saw as the excesses of the cultural turn on the other. In seeking an anti-positivist social scientific position, field
theory became increasingly important to him, as a means of recognizing the
complex interplay between social and physical space. Only with the recent translation of his early rural sociology has it become apparent to English-speaking readers
that Bourdieu was interested in spatiality at the outset of his research career. In the
studies of his home region of Barn in southwest France, conducted between 1959
and 1960, Bourdieu used a form of total description (Bourdieu 2008a: 2) to
explore the dilemma of the oldest sons who were unable to marry as farm daughters

BridgeThe New Blackwell Compaion to the City

c45.indd 512

11/5/2010 8:47:39 PM

THE LOST URBAN SOCIOLOGY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

513

left the countryside, so leaving the men stranded in declining family farms. He sees
the ultimate mark of the social deprivation of these men in terms of their fixity,
their inability to leave their family homes. The masculinism of Bourdieus account
is worthy of note here: his concern is explicitly with the parlous situation of the
unmarried men, rather than the women who remain ciphers in his work.
His account draws strongly on the organization of rural mobility, which he sees
as part of a wider opposition between bourg (town) and hameaux (hamlets or farms)
which was being eroded as peasants increasingly shopped and used the local services
of the towns rather than rely on their own domestic resources (Bourdieu 2008a:
68). He states that
In traditional society, spatial dispersion was not experienced as distance, because of
the strong social density linked to the intensity of collective life. Nowadays, given that
collective work and neigbourhood festivals have disappeared, peasant families feel their
isolation concretely. (Bourdieu 2008a: 70)

Although peasants become dependent on the services provided by the town, they
are culturally distant from, and alienated from it, and hence at the very centre of
his universe, the peasant finds a world in which, already, he is no longer at home
(Bourdieu 2008a: 75). This image of the inability to belong is evocative, and is a
forerunner of his concepts of cultural capital which at this time he had not yet
developed (see Robbins 2005). He links this tension to the linguistic divide between
French-speaking town-dwellers and Barnese-speaking farmers. He emphasizes how
this organization of space is not reciprocal. The town-dweller reacts against the
primitive peasant, confirming a sense of urban sophistication. But peasants are
dependent on the town, and are forced into a deferential acceptance of its power,
even whilst acknowledging their own difference from urban life, thus underscoring
their own subordination based on fatalism. In this formulation, which is now 50
years old, many recent themes are articulated which have surfaced in the class
analysis influenced by Bourdieus work (e.g. Skeggs 1997; Savage 2000; Savage
et al. 2005a), especially the idea that it is precisely the marginalized who are unable
to act collectively to redress their grievances. It is clear that Bourdieu sees this as
related to the spatial organization of social relationships.
In this early work, the concept of field is absent. Indeed, Bourdieus early interest
in field analysis, originating in the early 1970s, appeared to mark a break with this
interest in the organization of space. In the early formulations, such as that in The
Rules of Art and in papers published in the early 1970s (Bourdieu 1994), the concept
has two, somewhat contrasting sources of appeal. Firstly, it allowed him to retain
elements of the structural analysis which he had championed during the mid-1960s
whilst ditching what he saw as its problematic objectivist baggage. This affiliation
is especially clear in his 1976 lecture where he laid out, for the first time, elements
of his field analysis, in a form which echoed Althusserian structuralism:
Fields present themselves synchronically as structured spaces of positions (or posts)
whose properties depend on their position within these spaces and which can be analysed independently of the characteristics of their occupants (which are partly determined by them. (Bourdieu 1993b: 72)

BridgeThe New Blackwell Compaion to the City

c45.indd 513

11/5/2010 8:47:39 PM

514

MIKE SAVAGE

Secondly, the concept of field allowed him a means of taking on the positivist methodology of Lazarfeld, who, as he explains in his Sketches towards an Autobiography
(Bourdieu 2008b), he had battled with during the 1960s as he developed his first
cultural analysis. Rather than seeking to delineate the power of causal variables,
Bourdieu saw fields as a means of delineating social relationships through their
spatial organization, where he became interested in using multiple correspondence
analysis, a method developed in the 1960s by the French mathematician Jean-Paul
Benzecri, which located individuals and variables as co-ordinates in geometric space.
This was the method which he took up in Distinction as a means of demonstrating
the opposition between high and low culture, and between the cultural practices of intellectuals and industrialists, through the use of visual maps and
diagrams (see Bennett et al. 2009 for a recent example in the British case).
Bourdieu notes in Distinction that:
The mere fact that the social space can be presented as a diagram indicates that it
is an abstract representation, deliberately constructed, like a map, to give a birds eye
view Bringing together positions which the agents can never apprehend in their
totality and in their multiple relationships, social space is to the practical space of
everyday life, with its distances which are kept or signalled, and neighbours who may
be more remote than strangers, what geometrical space is to the travelling space of
ordinary experience. (Bourdieu 1985: 169)

This evocation of neighbours who may be more remote than strangers emphasizes
all too clearly how Bourdieu saw his field analysis, originating out of his structuralist
thinking, as an anti-humanist strategy for breaking from any determinism implied
by physical or geographical space.2
A similar concern to map out abstract field relations is evident too in the papers
on aspects of the artistic and literary fields which were collected in English in 1993
under the title of The Field of Cultural Production (Bourdieu 1993a). Although
diverse in focus, ranging from abstract theoretical statements to case studies of
Flaubert and Manet, the emphasis is constantly on seeing fields as defined by position taking, spaces of the possible. In none of these studies are actual urban
examples given. This invokes apparently a-spatial analyses, one which appears to
leave space as taken for granted, a backdrop to social action.
However, it is interesting that, in his later work, Bourdieu returned to the relationship between social and physical space in a rather different register. Influenced
by his working through of phenomenological sociology (most clearly demonstrated
in Pascalian Meditations [2000]), as well as by his fieldwork of the 1980s reported
in The Weight of the World (1999), and also by the example of his collaborator,
the urban sociologist Loic Wacquant, we can detect a reorientation of the concept
of the field, in which the properties of social space are partly inferred from the
analysis of physical space, and in which an interest in the relationship between the
social and spatial is of greater analytical interest.
Some of Bourdieus later work retains the formalist field analysis which is evident
in his writings from the 1970s (e.g. Bourdieu 2005), but there is also a new concern
to reflect on the nature of physical space. The reasons for this move become more
explicit in Pascalian Meditations, where he notes how certain properties of social
space are derived from physical space

BridgeThe New Blackwell Compaion to the City

c45.indd 514

11/5/2010 8:47:39 PM

THE LOST URBAN SOCIOLOGY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

515

Just as physical space, according to Strawson, is defined by the reciprocal externality

of positions the social space is defined by the mutual exclusion, or distinction, of
the positions which constitute it Social agents, and also the things insofar as they
are appropriated by them and therefore constituted as properties, are situated in a place
in social space. (Bourdieu 2000: 134, italics in the original)

Bourdieu here invokes the irretrievably corporeal nature of both physical and social
space, the way that shapes on the ground are associated with the organization of
fields and the distribution of capital. This marks a return to the spatial sensibility
which is evident in The Bachelors Ball, but which subsequently disappears in his
early formulations of field analysis. This renewed interest in physical spatiality is
clearly articulated in The Weight of the World.
As bodies (and biological individuals), and in the same way that things are,
human beings are situated in a site (they are not endowed with the ubiquity that
would allow them to be in several places at once), and they occupy a place. The
site (le lieu) can be defined absolutely as the point in physical space where an agent
or a thing is situated, takes place, exists: that is to say either as a localization or,
from a relational viewpoint, as a position, a rank in an order (Bourdieu 1999: 123).
This insistence is now part of Bourdieus concern to demonstrate that fields
matter concretely, that the relational power struggles they illuminate cannot but be
marked in the urban landscape itself. This is a different emphasis to the apparently
a-spatial structuralism of his earlier conception of field. He now argues that this
process of translation is also one of naturalization, in which the conflicts and
tensions which his field analysis reveals abstractly are occluded to social agents
because of the way they are mundanely marked on physical space.3 Processes of
misrecognition are thereby associated with the way that social categories become
naturalized through being embedded in fixed, physical, devices. Thus, physical space
is the concretization of social space.
Bourdieus thinking here is probably related to the interview testimonies collected
as part of The Weight of the World, many of which told stories of suffering integrally
related to peoples accounts of how they are fixed in deprived locations. He thus
returns to the tension between spatial fixity and mobility which he first examined
in the later 1950s. Whereas, in his field analysis of Distinction, the powerful and
the powerless could be detected as occupying different zones of social space, he
becomes more aware that seeing fields in these terms, as if the powerful and disadvantaged are two competing rugby teams each with their own formation on a fixed
pitch, is problematic. It overstates the ability of the powerless to form a coherent
team at all. Returning to his more fluid conceptions of spatial organization evident
in his youthful rural sociology, he now recognizes that the lack of capital intensifies
the experience of finitude: it chains one to a place (Bourdieu 1999: 127).
Anticipating the arguments of Zygmunt Bauman (1998) and Manuel Castells
(1996), he identifies the tension between the mobility of the powerful and the fixedness of the disadvantaged as integrally related to the difficulties of imagining change.
In this analysis, the ability to have a place of ones own becomes almost a precondition for social existence (again, a return to the concerns of his earlier rural sociology). Thus, in his invocations of the problems of living in Jonquil Street, Bourdieu
talks about how urban decline is associated with de-industrialization and how this
loss of place is itself related to the racism and fragmentation of urban experience.

BridgeThe New Blackwell Compaion to the City

c45.indd 515

11/5/2010 8:47:39 PM

516

MIKE SAVAGE

Throughout this book, Bourdieu deliberately refuses to abstract the nostalgic

accounts of his respondents from their physical location. In his cameo introductions
to collections of interviews, he deliberately starts by sketching the physical environment from which the accounts were generated (e.g. Bourdieu 1999: 6, 60).
It is this concern with how social space is both modeled on spatial exclusion, yet
also shapes the urban landscape by differentiating between those with, and those
without, the capacity to place themselves, which Bourdieu (2001) develops in his
last substantial study, The Social Structure of the Economy. In developing an analysis of the housing market which is explicitly critical of the assumptions of neoclassical economics, Bourdieu seeks to establish how forms of capital are implicated
in the very organization of the housing stock (see, further, Wacquant 2008). His
stress now is on how housing is doubly linked to space in that it is necessarily
built uniquely in a given location and is also subject to distinctively local markets,
yet also how it is produced by universalizing market forces. He goes onto insist on
the need for local analyses, where the local is not seen as a manifestation of larger
processes, but where the dynamic between universalizing forces which range over
physical space, and local particularity, are central. Bourdieu now goes beyond his
earlier emphases on how different zones figure as habitats for those with different
amounts of capital. Rather, he seeks to deconstruct the distinction between center
and periphery by seeing these terms as themselves the product of, and themselves
at stake in, the organization of the field itself. Here, the ability of the bureaucratic
state to define itself as located outside any particular site, as conveying universal
value, is fundamental to its ability to constitute itself as a powerful agent within
the field. He further insists, however, that the necessarily located existence of actual
people striving for decent housing prevents any simple implementation of a universalized plan.
What we now see, therefore, is that the capacity to define ones actions transcend
the local as a central political battle. Here his concern to criticize neo-liberal markets
is rooted in a resistance to its universalizing procedures, as well as a recognition
that simply defending local particularity will fail to grasp the wider processes at
work.4 Through this reformulation of field analysis, Bourdieus thinking has certain
resonances with that of Latour (who is also concerned with the contingent formation of immutable mobiles which are thus able to constitute themselves as obligatory points of passage). Latours emphasis on an associational sociology which is
premised on the flatness of the social world and which refuses to privilege social
forces as being of ontological importance has its counterpart in Bourdieus insistence
that power resides in the capacity to constitute itself as above location. In what
follows, I want to argue further that elements of this form of field analysis can be
elaborated in a way which allows these issues of mobility and intensity to be taken
up in an empirically effective way.

The Radicalization of Field Analysis

We have seen how, in his later work, Bourdieu spatializes his conception of field
through seeing space itself as an object of contestation rather than as a given. My
final suggestion here is that elements of complexity theory which are already
current in urban theory can be reconciled with Bourdieusian field analysis in a
way which might be empirically productive in developing urban analysis.

BridgeThe New Blackwell Compaion to the City

c45.indd 516

11/5/2010 8:47:39 PM

THE LOST URBAN SOCIOLOGY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

517

Contemporary urban theory largely starts from Henri Lefebvres (1990) insistence on the constructed nature of social space, which in his case is linked to a
Marxist insistence on the power of capitalism to produce abstract space. Lefebvres Hegelian analysis lacks a concept of field relations, and thereby proves problematic in recognizing how contestation takes place, other than through the
invocation of the role of artistic avant gardes. This weakness is linked to historicist
elements of Lefebvres thinking, whereby capitalist forces have their own efficacy
within an expressive totality. More recent theorists have emphasized relationality
the reciprocal relations between different groups, objects, sentiments, and ideas
as central to urban theory, and it is this which makes Bourdieus field analysis,
which is also concerned with relationality, so potentially appealing. The most challenging attempt to elaborate conceptions of power within urban thinking has been
from those drawing on the increasingly influential social theory of Gilles Deleuze
and Felix Guattari, in which conceptions of spatiality, or geophilosophy, are vital
(see, generally, Amin and Thrift 2002; Massey 2005; Gandy 2005). Deleuzian social
theory is often seen as concerned to overcome dualisms between the human and
technical, through its insistence on the desiring machine and the body without
organs (see for instance Gandy 2005). Deleuzes starting point is immanence, the
importance of thinking beyond existing concepts, through recognizing the process
of becoming as one which breaks from structure and form. This emphasis on the
figure of the rhizome allows a critical perspective on the arboreal metaphor which
characterizes linear thinking. This rhizomatic thinking seems different to Bourdieus
advocacy of the field, yet I want to suggest some unexpected parallels.
Although concerned with de-territorialization, Deleuze also addresses the
importance of re-terroritialization, the way that intense processes become (literally) sedimented and etched into physical features. This insistence is also linked to
his differentiation between smooth (intense) space and striated (marked) space (on
which see also Osborne and Rose 2004). They claim not that fluidities and mobilities somehow eradicate the importance of territoriality, but rather that fixed location
can be seen as the sedimented product of intensive flows.
The first articulation chooses or deducts, from unstable particle flows, metastable
molecular or quasi molecular units (substances) upon which it imposes a statistical
order of connections and successions (forms). The second articulation establishes
functional, compact, structures (forms) and constructs the molar compounds in which
these structures are simultaneously actualized (substances). (Deleuze and Guattari
1987: 46)

The challenge, then is to radicalize field analysis to recognize the tensions between
intensive and extensive, smooth and striated, space. As De Landa puts it, in elaborating Deleuze and Guattari:
A space is not just a set of points, but a set together with a way of binding these
together into neighbourhoods through well defined relations of proximity or contiguity.
In our familiar Euclidean geometry these relations are specified by fixed lengths or
distances which determine how close the points are to each other there exist other
spaces, however, fixed distances cannot define proximities since distances do not remain
fixed. A topological space, for example, may be stretched without the neighbourhoods
which define it changing in nature. (De Landa 2002: 22)

BridgeThe New Blackwell Compaion to the City

c45.indd 517

11/5/2010 8:47:39 PM

518

MIKE SAVAGE

This involves reading fields as de-centered processes, involving intensities and

dynamic features, in ways which might cut against a focus on key (arboreal)
variables or determinants. Here localization cannot be taken as given but is itself
subject to field processes. This is close to the way that Wacquant defines a field as
relational configuration endowed with a specific gravity which it imposes on all
the objects and agents which enter into it (Wacquant 1992: 17). These concerns
suggest new strategies for urban analysis. Rather than assume, along with Bourdieu
and Wacquant (1999), that fields are contained within national boundaries, we
might more usefully explore how struggles over scale are part of field dynamics,
and that situated urban case studies might be better able to probe these issues.

Conclusions
During the last three decades, leading urban theorists have rightly argued for the
need for a de-centered urban sociology, one which does not reify the urban or
assume fixed territorial boundaries. They have then faced the problem of retaining
space and place as significant categories of analysis when such fluidities are held to
be of defining importance. One result, usually unintentional, has been to make it
unclear how urban studies inform analyses of the kinds of persistent and deepening
inequalities which mark the current urban landscape.
I have argued here that we can best deal with this impasse through invoking, and
radicalizing, a tradition of field analysis which recognizes how power operates
through abstraction from location, and which is attentive to the resulting dialectic
of de- and re-territorialization. I recognize that my yoking of Bourdieus field theory
with Deleuze and Guattaris social thought and aspects of complexity theory is
unusual, and might even be regarded as perverse. Yet I hope to have at least intimated that there is the potential of radicalizing field analysis so that we do not read
it as relying on the invocation of fixed positions in geometric space. We can read
diagrams not as representational maps, but as indicators of flows and forces. We
are thus in a position to be able to use such methods to think about a language
of forces, densities, potentialities, virtualities (Amin and Thrift 2002: 81) in a way
which avoids a return to a purely linguistic or textual formulations. Through linking
these concerns also to Bourdieus own remarkable corpus of work, we can explore
how to avoid abandoning concerns with inequality and social division. Rather than
treating class, gender, and other social inequalities as variables, we can instead see
them as processes in flux. Through examining the clustering, sifting, and sorting of
people, objects, and identities in physical and social space, through investigating the
mechanisms which allow some to move more freely than others, and also through
examining the clustering and patterning of actions, we have the potential for enriching contemporary urban theory and recharging our understanding of social
inequality.

Notes
1 For the sociological debate, see for example Scott et al. 2000; Savage et al. 2005b; Bottero
2005. An interesting example of this lack of engagement is Jamie Pecks (2005) powerful

BridgeThe New Blackwell Compaion to the City

c45.indd 518

11/5/2010 8:47:39 PM

THE LOST URBAN SOCIOLOGY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

519

critique of Floridas idea of the creative class, which makes trenchant points about
Floridas misunderstanding of urban dynamics, but does not discuss how class itself
should be conceptualized.
See further on this, Martins (2003: 29) comment that a field theory is not simply a
spatial model while a field is, as Bourdieu (1993a: 72) says, a structured set of positions,
and positions can often be understood in spatial terms not all sets of relative positions
can be understood as a conventional space (since distances may not work according to
spatial logic).
He discusses the naturalization effect produced by the long-term inscription of social
realities in the natural world. Thus historical differences can seem to have arisen from
the nature of things (we need only think of the natural frontier). This is the case, for
example, with all the spatial projections of social difference between the sexes (at church,
in school, in public, and even at home) (Bourdieu 1999: 124).
The perfectly commendable wish to see things in person, close up, sometimes leads
people to search for the explanatory principles of observed realities where they are not
to be found (not all of them, anyway), at the site of observation itself. The truth about
what happens in the problem suburbs certainly does not lie in these usually forgotten
sites that leap into the headlines from time to time (Bourdieu 1999: 181).

References
Allen, C. (2008a) Housing Market Renewal and Social Class. London: Routledge.
Allen, C. (2008b) Gentrification research and the academic nobility: a different class? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32 (1): 1805.
Amin, A., and Thrift, N. (2002) Cities: Re-Imagining the Urban. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Atkinson, R. (2006) Padding the bunker: strategies of middle class disaffiliation and colonization in the city. Urban Studies 43 (3): 81932.
Atkinson, R., and Blandy, S. (2007) Panic rooms: the rise of defensive homeownership, Housing Studies 22 (4): 44358.
Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalization. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bennett, T., Savage, M., Silva, E., Warde, A., Gayo-Cal, M., and Wright, D. (2009) Culture,
Class, Distinction. London: Routledge.
Blokland, T., and Savage, M. (eds.) (2008) Networked Urbanism: Social Capital and the City.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bottero, W. (2005) Social Stratification. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1985) Distinction. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1993a) The Field of Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1993b) Sociology in Question. London: Sage.
Bourdieu, P. (1994) The Rules of Art. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1999) The Weight of the World. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2000) Pascalian Meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2001) The Social Structure of the Economy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2005) The political field, the social science field, and the journalistic field. In
Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, ed. R. Benson and E Neveu. Cambridge: Polity Press,
2947.
Bourdieu, P. (2008a) The Bachelors Ball. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2008b) Sketches towards Self Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P., and Wacquant, L. (1999) On the cunning of imperialist reasoning. Theory, Culture and Society 16 (1): 4158.
Butler, T., and Robson, G. (2003) London Calling. Aldershot: Ashgate.

BridgeThe New Blackwell Compaion to the City

c45.indd 519

11/5/2010 8:47:39 PM

520

MIKE SAVAGE

Butler, T., and Watt, P. (2007) Understanding Social Inequality. London: Sage.
Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford, Blackwell.
Crompton, R. (2008) Class and Stratification. 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
De Landa, M. (2002) Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. London: Continuum.
Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus. London: Continuum.
Ellison, N., and Burrows, R. (2006) New spaces of (dis) engagement? Social politics, urban
technologies and the re-zoning of the city. Housing Studies 22 (3): 295312.
Gandy, M. (2005) Cyborg urbanization: complexity and monstrosity in the contemporary
city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29 (1): 2649:.
Graham S., and Marvin, S. (2001) Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. London: Routledge.
Hillier, J., and Rooksby, E. (2002) Habitus: A Sense of Place. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Latour, B. (2005) Re-imagining the Social. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lefebvre, H. (1990) The Social Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Martin, J. (2003) What is field theory? American Journal of Sociology 109 (1): 149.
Massey, D. (2005) For Space. London: Sage.
Osborne, T., and Rose, N. (2004) Spatial phenomenotechnics: making space with Charles
Booth and Patrick Geddes. Society and Space 22: 20928.
Painter, J. (2000) Pierre Bourdieu. In Thinking Space, ed. M. Crang and N. Thrift. London:
Routledge, 23959.
Parker, S. (2003) Urban Theory and Urban Experience: Encountering the City. London:
Routledge.
Parker, S., Uprichard, E., and Burrows, R. (2007) Class places and place classes: geodemographics and the spatialisation of class. Information, Communication and Society 10 (6):
90221.
Peck, J. (2005) Struggling with the creative class. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29 (4): 740770.
Robbins, D. (2005) The origins, early development and status of Bourdieus concept of cultural capital. British Journal of Sociology 56 (1): 1330.
Savage, M. (2000) Class Analysis and Social Transformation. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Savage, M. (2009) The politics of elective belonging. Housing, Theory and Society: 156.
Savage, M., Bagnall, G., and Longhurst, B. (2005a) Globalisation and Belonging. London:
Sage.
Savage, M., Warde, A., Devine, F. (2005b) Capitals, assets and resources. British Journal of
Sociology 56 (1): 3148.
Scott, J., Crompton, R., Devine, F., and Savage, M. (2000) Renewing Stratification Theory.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Sheller, M, and Urry, J. (2006) Mobile Technologies of the City. London: Routledge.
Skeggs, B. (1997) Formations of Class and Gender. London: Sage.
Wacquant, L. (1992) Towards a social praxeology: the structure and logic of Bourdieus sociology. In P. Bourdieu and L. Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge:
Polity Press, 160.
Wacquant, L. (2007) Urban Outcasts. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Wacquant, L. (2008) Relocating gentrification: the working class, science and the state in
recent urban research. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32 (1):
198205.
Watt, P. (2008) The only class in town? Gentrification and the middle-class colonization of
the city and the urban imagination. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
32 (1): 20611.
Urry, J. (2007) Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press.

BridgeThe New Blackwell Compaion to the City

c45.indd 520

11/5/2010 8:47:40 PM